Presentation Details

Abstract Resume

Background: Countries that have achieved international success in high level sport have plans for national actions, managed by different agencies, drawn up centrally and implemented
throughout the country. In the last decade, different studies analyzed the organizational structure of national sports programs. Among them, the Model SPLISS (Sports Policies Leading to Sporting
Success) that considers nine pillars in international comparative survey of 15 countries (De Bosscher et al., 2015). Pillar 2, the model basis, refers to governance, structure and organization of
policies for the sport, with an integrated approach to the development of these policies. On this basis, the sports system is structured so that, with the entry of financial resources (Pillar 1),
Sports administration entities may plan, manage, implement and evaluate actions related to other pillars (3-9). The objective of this research is to analyze the participation of athletes in the
formulation and evaluation of sport policies, one of the aspects analyzed in Pillar 2.
Methods: Quantitative research was developed at the national (2011) and regional levels - 9 States and the Federal District (2014). Data were collected from athletes that answered an
online questionnaire consisting of 57 questions. At the national level, responses of 449 athletes (29 sports), were obtained. At the regional level, 444 athletes (18 sports) answered the research. The
results show that at the federal level there is a minority of National Federations having Athletes Commissions (30%).
Results: The involvement of athletes in political decisions BEFORE (discussion and drawing up) and AFTER (results) the implementation of policy plans was rated by 51% of respondents
as "not involved or insufficiently involved." At the regional level, the data show a low involvement in the discussion and policy-making: 47% of the interviewed people evaluating as "insufficiently or
not involved" in the Regional Federations and 52% State Departments, respectively, and 20% and 24% "do not know". Similar results were obtained on the involvement in the evaluation of policies AFTER
the policy plans have been implemented. Concerning Regional Federations, 41% of the athletes consider their participation as "insufficiently or “not involved" and 24% said “did not know”. To the State
Departments the results was similar: 42% and 27% respectively.
Conclusions: Regarding these data we can conclude that most athletes are not involved in any stage of the management of targeted policies to their status as subject of these policies
in the country. The active participation of athletes in the formulation of the actions is not common to all states. This situation tends to change from the determination of a new law that was approved
in the country in 2013, which provides for measures to the representation of warranty class athletes in decisions about regulations of competitions and steering boards and election in the entities
that want to access public funding.